Hollywood Meets Madison Avenue: The Commercialization Of US Films
Level 1 Introduction to Media Studies.
Assignment 1.
Wasko's piece dates from 10 years ago: how has the market changed (if indeed it has)?
When watching any Hollywood blockbuster it is very difficult to ignore all the commercialisation that surrounds film. Even if you're just watching a Hollywood blockbuster, that you know no background about, it is almost impossible to ignore the product placement in the film, the merchandising that is made readily available to you, and the endless about of shops, brands and restaurants that advertise the film. In Janet Wasko's "Hollywood meets Madison Avenue: the Commercialisation of U.S. Films", she makes the film industry's need to advertising so obvious.
Wasko describes Hollywood as vehicles for even further commercial activity in the form of advertising and merchandising.' Wasko's article is split into three different sections, product placement, merchandising and tie-ins. Wasko describes Hollywood as becoming a business or commodity' rather than being the entertainment industry that it is meant to be. Since the beginning of film, it seems that product advertising has always taken place in Hollywood. However Wasko argues that instead of a script being written to create a film, it is written to fit in as much advertising as possible, to make as much money as possible.
Product …show more content…
placement is a very big part of the film industry, Wasko draws on the example of Pepsi whom have featured in approximately seventy feature films since 1919' (Wasko
2).
Pepsi is an example I will also use later in this study; I have found Pepsi to play a very big part in the product placement game. It is hard to ignore the amount of Pepsi placements that exist when watching a film, even Mike Myers picks up on Pepsi in his film Wayne's World, in which there is a sketch of a television show in which they make a blatantly obvious Pepsi placement. Wasko's argument on product placing is obviously that it is turning the film industry into a commodity' but she does include other people's views on the argument of product placement. One point I found particularly interesting was that made by Lois
Sheinfield,
The movie industry may not realize the legal problems attendant upon this valuable resource [corporate America] and the commercialization of film. Take for example a movie version of Macbeth. What if Lady M tries to get the damned spot out with a can of Ajax? If Ajax is Kovoloff's client and has to be presented in a positive manner, then naturally the Lady will get the spot out. Well, that's a problem. No matter that Shakespeare didn't want her to get the spot out. He's dead and can't complain. The problem is Truth in Advertising Can Ajax get out a blood spot on the brain? Aye, there's the rub!!' (Wasko 2)
The point that Sheinfield makes here is very important, when is enough, enough? Are films scripts being written to include product placement deals or do they just happen to fall into place? According to Wasko movie producers generally argue that they chose subjects of choice and then listen to product placement appeals' and that product placement does not influence artistic interpretation', however there is no way of proving this statement, obviously in Wayne's World the Pepsi spoof' placement was made especially for the script but Wasko argues that Hollywood is becoming a money lead co-operation. To prove this point Wasko draws upon the example of Twentieth Century Fox Licensing and Merchandising Corporation, who will charge anything from $20,000 to $100,000 for product placement in a major motion picture'. This to me seems a hugely overwhelming amount of money for a product to appear in a film. Cigarettes seem to be the starter product that appeared in placements, for example The Flintstones were the first programme to advertising a particular brand. Wasko draws upon the verbal mention of cigarettes in the film Wall Street 'Get this kid a Molson Light', product placement of cigarettes is always going to be around as characters in blockbusters are always going to smoke and therefore Hollywood would create a prime spot for cigarette product placements. Wasko's makes the point of making it clear to the audience just how important it is to Hollywood to include product placements. Wasko claims that product placements create extra revenue for films, before they are even released, and the product's company have (almost) guaranteed advertising. The kind of advertising the products would be getting give the impression of a certain kind of lifestyle for example if you drive an Aston Martin you will be like James Bond. Which makes product placement a win win situation for both the film and product producers.
Jan Kean, national director of promotions for Orion Pictures Corporation presents tie-ins as joint promotions' that help the cost the marketing of the movie' (Wasko). Tie ins are products that are around all year round, but at the time of a film's release promotional products are released, there is no reason that these products appear in the film although they may do. Wasko draws upon the examples of three major Hollywood blockbusters Willow, Oliver and Company, and Land before time. Whenever a big blockbuster it is hard to ignore the entire tie ins that occur. With, for example, the resent release of Disney Pixar's Cars McDonalds released play cars from the films in their happy meals. Wasko presents tie-ins as a bonus for the product even if the film is not a success, for example she uses the film Willow, which as she says did not materialise in to the anticipated box-office smash' its tie-ins were still successful. Therefore tie-ins must work despite a films success, making them very appealing to product producers. Wasko makes the comment that
The benefit to these companies comes from their association with a potentially successful movie which gives their essentially dull products (in terms of image) the chance to be thought of as part and parcel of a world of mystery and wonder.
Although it is very difficult to anticipate just how successful a blockbuster movie will be. However this does not seem to matter with tie-in products. From recent adverts of the new James Bond film casino Royale it is clear to see that Sony already have a product placement within the film advertising their brand of laptop Vaio. Sony are already advertising their product placement but have also created tie-ins with McDonalds where you have a chance to win Bond's laptop. As at the moment Bond fever is around, the adverts lead the audience into thinking that the Sony Vaio laptop is in the film however there is no footage in the advert of Bond actually using the laptop. The slogan that accompanies the laptop/Bond advert is equip yourself like Bond'; the slogan sells a lifestyle of a 007 agent. Bond is a very interesting film to look at for product placement and merchandising, following the new Bond, Daniel Craig, appearing in this film a whole new range of merchandising is appearing on James Bond's official website. Wasko describes merchandising as as commodities based on movie themes, characters or images which are designed, produced and marketed for direct sale, and not connected to other products or services (as with tie-ins).' On the official James Bond website an array of James Bond dolls, cards and cars have appeared in the last couple of weeks. The cars that appear are also Aston Martins that do appear in the film. Aston Martin that is owned by Ford cars is always the prominent car that is associated with James Bond, in the film Die another day almost every object that was featured in the film was made by Ford, creating a huge product placement for Ford as Aston Martins have always appeared in their films. Obviously there are no figures as yet to how successful Casino Royale will be, but it will be interesting to find out if McDonald's huge giveaway will create revenue for them of Sony or indeed the film itself. If Wasko's report is anything to go by even if the film is not a great success then the tie-ins product placement and merchandising may well be in spite of the film.
Mike Myers is known for his films mocking product placement as with Wayne's World and Austin Powers. In Austin Powers the Spy who Shagged Me the opening to the film contains approximately 22 product placements from Pepsi to washing powder to Speedos (www.brandchannel.com).
Mike Myers films seem to create a very interesting relationship with product placements. They are mocked at some points and slyly (but obviously) placed in the film. In the films opening weekend Austin Powers took $54,917,604. This is a huge amount of money for an opening weekend especially when the films budget was a mere estimated $33,000,000(www.imbd.com) in comparison. For the amount of people that saw this film a lot of advertising occurred and a huge boost would have been made through this films blatant advertising.
Through this film I can see that Wasko's theory and study does stand true and it will probably be true for James Bond as well.
Assignment 1.
Wasko's piece dates from 10 years ago: how has the market changed (if indeed it has)?
When watching any Hollywood blockbuster it is very difficult to ignore all the commercialisation that surrounds film. Even if you're just watching a Hollywood blockbuster, that you know no background about, it is almost impossible to ignore the product placement in the film, the merchandising that is made readily available to you, and the endless about of shops, brands and restaurants that advertise the film. In Janet Wasko's "Hollywood meets Madison Avenue: the Commercialisation of U.S. Films", she makes the film industry's need to advertising so obvious.
Wasko describes Hollywood as vehicles for even further commercial activity in the form of advertising and merchandising.' Wasko's article is split into three different sections, product placement, merchandising and tie-ins. Wasko describes Hollywood as becoming a business or commodity' rather than being the entertainment industry that it is meant to be. Since the beginning of film, it seems that product advertising has always taken place in Hollywood. However Wasko argues that instead of a script being written to create a film, it is written to fit in as much advertising as possible, to make as much money as possible.
Product …show more content…
placement is a very big part of the film industry, Wasko draws on the example of Pepsi whom have featured in approximately seventy feature films since 1919' (Wasko
2).
Pepsi is an example I will also use later in this study; I have found Pepsi to play a very big part in the product placement game. It is hard to ignore the amount of Pepsi placements that exist when watching a film, even Mike Myers picks up on Pepsi in his film Wayne's World, in which there is a sketch of a television show in which they make a blatantly obvious Pepsi placement. Wasko's argument on product placing is obviously that it is turning the film industry into a commodity' but she does include other people's views on the argument of product placement. One point I found particularly interesting was that made by Lois
Sheinfield,
The movie industry may not realize the legal problems attendant upon this valuable resource [corporate America] and the commercialization of film. Take for example a movie version of Macbeth. What if Lady M tries to get the damned spot out with a can of Ajax? If Ajax is Kovoloff's client and has to be presented in a positive manner, then naturally the Lady will get the spot out. Well, that's a problem. No matter that Shakespeare didn't want her to get the spot out. He's dead and can't complain. The problem is Truth in Advertising Can Ajax get out a blood spot on the brain? Aye, there's the rub!!' (Wasko 2)
The point that Sheinfield makes here is very important, when is enough, enough? Are films scripts being written to include product placement deals or do they just happen to fall into place? According to Wasko movie producers generally argue that they chose subjects of choice and then listen to product placement appeals' and that product placement does not influence artistic interpretation', however there is no way of proving this statement, obviously in Wayne's World the Pepsi spoof' placement was made especially for the script but Wasko argues that Hollywood is becoming a money lead co-operation. To prove this point Wasko draws upon the example of Twentieth Century Fox Licensing and Merchandising Corporation, who will charge anything from $20,000 to $100,000 for product placement in a major motion picture'. This to me seems a hugely overwhelming amount of money for a product to appear in a film. Cigarettes seem to be the starter product that appeared in placements, for example The Flintstones were the first programme to advertising a particular brand. Wasko draws upon the verbal mention of cigarettes in the film Wall Street 'Get this kid a Molson Light', product placement of cigarettes is always going to be around as characters in blockbusters are always going to smoke and therefore Hollywood would create a prime spot for cigarette product placements. Wasko's makes the point of making it clear to the audience just how important it is to Hollywood to include product placements. Wasko claims that product placements create extra revenue for films, before they are even released, and the product's company have (almost) guaranteed advertising. The kind of advertising the products would be getting give the impression of a certain kind of lifestyle for example if you drive an Aston Martin you will be like James Bond. Which makes product placement a win win situation for both the film and product producers.
Jan Kean, national director of promotions for Orion Pictures Corporation presents tie-ins as joint promotions' that help the cost the marketing of the movie' (Wasko). Tie ins are products that are around all year round, but at the time of a film's release promotional products are released, there is no reason that these products appear in the film although they may do. Wasko draws upon the examples of three major Hollywood blockbusters Willow, Oliver and Company, and Land before time. Whenever a big blockbuster it is hard to ignore the entire tie ins that occur. With, for example, the resent release of Disney Pixar's Cars McDonalds released play cars from the films in their happy meals. Wasko presents tie-ins as a bonus for the product even if the film is not a success, for example she uses the film Willow, which as she says did not materialise in to the anticipated box-office smash' its tie-ins were still successful. Therefore tie-ins must work despite a films success, making them very appealing to product producers. Wasko makes the comment that
The benefit to these companies comes from their association with a potentially successful movie which gives their essentially dull products (in terms of image) the chance to be thought of as part and parcel of a world of mystery and wonder.
Although it is very difficult to anticipate just how successful a blockbuster movie will be. However this does not seem to matter with tie-in products. From recent adverts of the new James Bond film casino Royale it is clear to see that Sony already have a product placement within the film advertising their brand of laptop Vaio. Sony are already advertising their product placement but have also created tie-ins with McDonalds where you have a chance to win Bond's laptop. As at the moment Bond fever is around, the adverts lead the audience into thinking that the Sony Vaio laptop is in the film however there is no footage in the advert of Bond actually using the laptop. The slogan that accompanies the laptop/Bond advert is equip yourself like Bond'; the slogan sells a lifestyle of a 007 agent. Bond is a very interesting film to look at for product placement and merchandising, following the new Bond, Daniel Craig, appearing in this film a whole new range of merchandising is appearing on James Bond's official website. Wasko describes merchandising as as commodities based on movie themes, characters or images which are designed, produced and marketed for direct sale, and not connected to other products or services (as with tie-ins).' On the official James Bond website an array of James Bond dolls, cards and cars have appeared in the last couple of weeks. The cars that appear are also Aston Martins that do appear in the film. Aston Martin that is owned by Ford cars is always the prominent car that is associated with James Bond, in the film Die another day almost every object that was featured in the film was made by Ford, creating a huge product placement for Ford as Aston Martins have always appeared in their films. Obviously there are no figures as yet to how successful Casino Royale will be, but it will be interesting to find out if McDonald's huge giveaway will create revenue for them of Sony or indeed the film itself. If Wasko's report is anything to go by even if the film is not a great success then the tie-ins product placement and merchandising may well be in spite of the film.
Mike Myers is known for his films mocking product placement as with Wayne's World and Austin Powers. In Austin Powers the Spy who Shagged Me the opening to the film contains approximately 22 product placements from Pepsi to washing powder to Speedos (www.brandchannel.com).
Mike Myers films seem to create a very interesting relationship with product placements. They are mocked at some points and slyly (but obviously) placed in the film. In the films opening weekend Austin Powers took $54,917,604. This is a huge amount of money for an opening weekend especially when the films budget was a mere estimated $33,000,000(www.imbd.com) in comparison. For the amount of people that saw this film a lot of advertising occurred and a huge boost would have been made through this films blatant advertising.
Through this film I can see that Wasko's theory and study does stand true and it will probably be true for James Bond as well.